posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:51 AM
This applies for 9/11 and primarily at debunkers who claim that various data and theory is inapplicable due to a lack of peer review and
Peer review is a non-objective review of a scholar's paper, data, methodology, and conclusions that is submitted to multiple other scholars in the
same discipline as the submitters in order to verify and authenticate the material contained.
As anthropologists can attest, the peer review does not ensure honesty and objective consideration of data and results. Often, peer review will
reject cutting-edge material for a number of reasons, the most common of them being that they do not match what the reviewer has invested in his/her
own research and conclusions.
For example, there is Proto-Indo-European, a theorized and well-developed proto-language that is not recorded but inferred through thousands and
thousands of linguisitic research. Its commonly understood to be the root of most Romance, Germanic, and Sanskrit languages... but, if you push that
theory that there are other proto-languages that share common relations, then the peer review becomes compromised with those who have invested in all
their research and suddenly get shown that they 'missed the boat' with other data.
This is common among many disciplines. Consider V-twin technology - its advanced quite a bit (thanks to the image of Harley-Davidson) but no one
invested in V-Twin development likes talking about how its inherently flawed.
Consider other disciplines - oil development - abiotic oil is a new trend in oil production and geologic theory, and its routinely quashed by pressure
from green influences. Does it have merit? Who knows? But no one will find out without it being taken on its data and proving the data accurate or
So - to 9/11 theory. empirically, these building collapses were the first three due to fire with skyscraper technology. Hell, even the Empire State
Building survived a crash with a plane (not the same size, but with minimal and no structural compromise).
The NIST data has been challenged. However, with federal grants and other pressures on many of the scholars involved, contradictory data and findings
will be unfairly quashed under improperly rejected peer review. The scientists involved are ideologically compromised by their funding and support
I personally think that properly refereed peer review is important, but not the end-all be-all of scholarship that people think it is. There is
obvious bias in much of the pool of likely reviewers. Anyone who does it would have to select scientists and figure out how to pay them to be honest
and not lean toward the views of their sponsoring benefactors.